Commentary on local planning applications and wider developments

The following two letters, giving the opinion of the Bishopston Society regarding these two planning applications have been sent to the Planning department:

15, UPPER CRANBROOK ROAD - Our response to the initial application:

We are concerned about the size of the proposed extensions in relation to the existing house and the impact on the adjoining property no 13 Cranbrook Road. The rear extension is already extremely large, but the side extension, which is tight up to the boundary, is very high and bulky with a raised parapet and will block out daylight from the adjoining property’s kitchen/dining room and be overbearing. The roof extension again has large double French doors and a Juliet balcony which will dominate and overlook the neighbours’ garden.

The scale and design of the proposed extensions is excessive and shows no consideration for the adjacent property. We recommend refusal.

We are writing to confirm our continuing opposition to this application following minor revisions submitted on 18 August. The minor revisions do nothing to allay our previous concerns that the proposed side extension will be too high and overbearing and will block out the daylight from and dominate the neighbours’ side windows which serve their kitchen and dining area. The drawing of the proposed side elevation of the proposed side extension continues to misrepresent the level difference between nos 13 and 15 by not showing the significant underbuild to the new extension (as clearly indicated on the as existing side elevation drawing) required as a result of the ground level difference between the two properties. The large rear dormer with the French doors overlooking adjacent gardens has not been modified to ensure that the privacy of neighbours is not breached.

This is an application which continues to show a blatant disregard for the interests and wellbeing of neighbouring properties. We strongly recommend refusal.

15, UPPER CRANBROOK ROAD. Further update (Sept 24th) in our response to latest revision of planning application for this property:

Further to our earlier comments dated 3 and 26 August, we confirm that we still have significant concerns about this application even in its latest revision dated 16 September. This latest revision makes only one change to the proposals; the substitution of a monopitched roof to the side extension in lieu of the original flat roof with parapet. This amendment still leaves the side extension as long, blank, tight to the boundary and overbearing and blocking out daylight to the neighbours. The side elevation still omits to show the underbuild below ground level (which is clearly shown on the as existing elevations) which is required to take up the level difference between the two properties. This creates a false impression that the side extension is less overbearing than would actually be the case in reality.

This application is a classic case of overdevelopment at both ground floor and roof level, with the footprint of the house increased by nearly 40%, the on-site parking reduced from 4 to 1 space and the access to the rear omitted. The proposals show a lack of consideration for and a lack of effective consultation with the neighbours and set a bad precedent for the area. We recommend refusal.

Outcome: Granted but with significant changes

LAND BETWEEN 28-30 RADNOR ROAD

This application is a very poor quality design attempting to fit in with its surroundings. The use of standard catalogue joinery and a most pedestrian porch canopy do nothing to enhance the area. The house is considerably deeper in plan than the adjacent properties alongside and as such the bulk of the house projecting out at the rear will only serve to block out the daylight from neighbouring properties and the windows will overlook their rear gardens. Whilst the front elevation is extremely poor in terms of composition, proportion and detail, the side and rear elevations are considerably worse.

This is a house which is too large for its site and pays scant lip service to the need to blend in with and respect the adjacent properties and the character of the area. We recommend refusal.

Following your comments about the above application, I can inform you that the proposal was considered under delegated powers on 20 August 2014, and the decision was as follows: GRANTED subject to condition(s).

A copy of the officer report and the decision notice with any conditions attached, can now be viewed from our website.

If you require any further information about this application, please contact us.

The University West of England (UWE) are currently conducting a surveyabout how people are using Greenspaces at the moment. It’s been commissioned by the West of England Combined Authority (WECA) and the results will inform future policy. If you have an interest in our green areas and wish to take part in the survey please use the link below.
“By green spaces we mean any natural or semi-natural areas partially or completely covered by vegetation that occur in or near urban areas. They include parks, trails, woodlands, reservoirs, rivers, and allotments, which provide habitat for wildlife and can be used for recreation.
This study will provide robust, high-quality evidence to policy makers, local authorities, planners and property developers to make informed decisions on how green space should be provided, promoted and managed, and how its use and importance changes during pandemics”.
Here’s the link: https://bit.ly/3cSGnnQand this is the press release: https://info.uwe.ac.uk/news/uwenews/news.aspx?id=4033

Supporters say a new station at St Anne’s could give rapid commuter access into central Bristol, Keynsham and Bath, relieving pressure on the busy A4 road linking the two cities. This follows secure funding for the Portishead line and Henbury station.